Harry Kane

[Basil Brush]

I bet they're thinking they can get by without for another season again, and then just chuck half a mill in wages at Haaland next summer.

Very possibly, but that could be a massive gamble on their part. I mean Harry is ultra proven in the league.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Very possibly, but that could be a massive gamble on their part. I mean Harry is ultra proven in the league.

I don't think so, Haaland is already at that level, and is only going to get better. He's an absolute monster and will dominate the Prem the way Drogba did. I've very little doubt about that.

 

[GutBucket]

I don't think so, Haaland is already at that level, and is only going to get better. He's an absolute monster and will dominate the Prem the way Drogba did. I've very little doubt about that.

He's a monster in CL too, which is their ultimate goal. He might not want to join City though.

 

[Basil Brush]

I don't think so, Haaland is already at that level, and is only going to get better. He's an absolute monster and will dominate the Prem the way Drogba did. I've very little doubt about that.

Fair points, but are they even sure of getting Haaland next season?

They can get a proven striker now, who they know wants to join them.

Anyway, we will see what happens soon (possibly by the end of this week if the reports are true)

 

[tommo84]

Listening to various radio snippets and podcasts yesterday, there does seem to have been a shift in some of the reporting on this, with the lack of a ‘serious’ bid being mentioned by most of the journos close to Spurs, and a number of people now questioning how much City really want Kane.

That’s what makes Kane’s behaviour a little bit bizarre - he’s throwing away his legacy at Spurs when City haven’t really come to the table yet. Maybe it’s closer than everyone thinks and Spurs are leaking otherwise to help with negotiations for our transfer targets, but if City are as far away from meeting our valuation as we’re being led to believe, then H and his brother have had a mare and couldn’t have played this much worse.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Fair points, but are they even sure of getting Haaland next season?

They can get a proven striker now, who they know wants to join them.

Anyway, we will see what happens soon (possibly by the end of this week if the reports are true)

In that respect, sure. Haaland will have a lot of suitors, and it will be all about the wages and contract being offered.

 

[gilzeantheking]

There were 2 City fans on 5Live on Sunday morning, both were worried that if they got Kane, Man U would swoop in for Haaland. Who they considered a better fit for City.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Listening to various radio snippets and podcasts yesterday, there does seem to have been a shift in some of the reporting on this, with the lack of a ‘serious’ bid being mentioned by most of the journos close to Spurs, and a number of people now questioning how much City really want Kane.

That’s what makes Kane’s behaviour a little bit bizarre - he’s throwing away his legacy at Spurs when City haven’t really come to the table yet. Maybe it’s closer than everyone thinks and Spurs are leaking otherwise to help with negotiations for our transfer targets, but if City are as far away from meeting our valuation as we’re being led to believe, then H and his brother have had a mare and couldn’t have played this much worse.

Well said. He needed to have been damn sure of their interest - not some luke warm ‘we’ll haveyou at a bargain’ interest - before going nuclear

He may well have had a total shocker here

 

[BPR_U16]

IF he does stay, let’s get a proper decent striker in this summer so that we are at least prepared for when he does eventually jump ship.

(yes, I realise that kind of thinking is so realistically obvious that it barely needs saying, but yet, here we are. Of course it should be the plan, and if isn’t then frankly that is fucking worrying.)

If he stays, which i now hope he doesn't, we not only need an additional striker in but we need to play him too.

Too much of our game has been centred around Kane for too long and as Sunday demonstrated yet again, we can play and win without him. Not only that but we can play a different way.

We have become too dependent and suffered as a result of his injuries - and ankle issues get worse as you get older and they take more knocks .

Get Dhusan in, and fully integrate him into team.

 

[SuperLuka]

Ronaldo linked with Man City by Daily Mail. Apparently available for 25m.

 

[GazzaB]

Ronaldo linked with Man City by Daily Mail. Apparently available for 25m.

Man United Ronaldo? ?

 

[nicdic]

Has anyone read Henry Winter’s piece in The Times this morning?



I don’t have access to the whole thing.

 

[SuperLuka]

Man United Ronaldo? ?

Yes. Also linked with a move back to Real and PSG.

 

[GazzaB]

Yes. Also linked with a move back to Real and PSG.

PSG imo if Mbappe gets a move to ReeAle.

 

[sidford]

Has anyone read Henry Winter’s piece in The Times this morning?



I don’t have access to the whole thing.

Don't have a sub for it but it's good to see that a good bit of the press are not trying to portray him as some sort of hero fighting against bond villain Levy.

No matter how this ends up, good old Charlie and H will have their own chapter in the agents handbook called "How to make sure even one of the richest clubs in the world can't buy your player"

 

[Real_madyidd]

Has anyone read Henry Winter’s piece in The Times this morning?



I don’t have access to the whole thing.

Charlie hasn't.

 

[Spurspiria]

This article in the iNews sums it up perfectly (worth reading the entire article)

Link: Harry Kane risks destroying part of what made him special if he ditches Tottenham for Man City

"If Kane does join Manchester City, you wonder whether he has fully comprehended how his reputation will change forever. Or, to be more pointed, how much of Kane’s emergence and subsequent consistency was founded upon his presence at his boyhood club, his ability to be the focal point of the team and the enduring love of the supporters who were proud to call him theirs? He was them and they were him. Those two threads have been untangled until Kane stands alone.

Gone will be the blue-eyed boy and the one-club man. Gone will be Kane’s connection with supporters that extended beyond a voracious desire to win the biggest trophies in the game. Gone will be the stereotype of Kane as the selfless captain who so desperately wanted to win with his mates in a particular stadium. He will be simply the latest mega-signing striker, the gun for hire bought by the richest club in the world because they could. Gone will be the mythical striker who rose out of nowhere, replaced by a tangible asset and a large number on the balance sheet. Gone will be “Tottenham’s Harry Kane”; just “Harry Kane”."

 

[mickeybaz]

Has anyone read Henry Winter’s piece in The Times this morning?



I don’t have access to the whole thing.

It almost needs a siren to alert everyone. As ever when Graeme Souness, Gary Neville and Micah Richards gather to debate issues pitchside or in the studio, the audience is royally entertained and richly informed. Sky’s insistence on continued social distancing between the feisty trio appears advisable as hackles rise. So it was on Sunday at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium when Harry Kane’s future was again on the agenda with noisy pundits knocking seven decibels out of each other.

Souness and Neville were born bristling, the pugilist trait underpinning their glittering careers. Richards is mellower but still fights his corner with a forthright passion. When Paul Pogba’s name and his future were lobbed into the Kane discussion, it was like the first time nitro and glycerine were introduced to each other. Sparks flew.


Souness has a pronounced problem with Pogba and his perceived commitment levels, slightly overlooking his four assists for Manchester United the day before, let alone the Frenchman’s World Cup medal. Neville considers anyone contemplating quitting United as a renegade requiring challenging, even counselling, possibly confining. Red Nev also has an issue with Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, whose name alone causes palpitations inside Carrington.

Richards, a confident, welcome new voice among such media monarchs, argued that double standards were at play over the respective headline treatment of Pogba and Kane. Richards wasn’t playing the race card, although many on social media do. Richards simply articulated the view that Kane was getting off lightly. “Kane’s not turned up for training and we call him a saint,” Richards said. “Pogba’s never said he wanted to leave and he’s getting abuse.” Pogba, arguably, has even more cause to ponder his future with one year remaining on his contract. Kane has three.
It made for great television, but also required further analysis. The situations, and personalities, are slightly different. Raiola operates as a lightning conductor, taking the heat off his client. Pogba just goes about his work, training and playing, as Raiola goes about his, plotting and negotiating. With Kane, all the focus is on him. Those who believe England captains get the clichéd “easy ride” ignore the history of David Beckham, John Terry and Wayne Rooney, frequently vilified, their personal and professional lives splashed, often trashed, across front and back pages.

This hypothesis that foreign players are more harshly critiqued is a seized-on narrative simply not borne out by fact. Eric Cantona and Luis Suárez were voted footballer of the year by the nation’s writers after their respective kung-fu and racist controversies. Terry’s hopes of a smooth entry into management are, rightly, still questioned for his offensive comment to Anton Ferdinand. People blur social issues with footballing. The English media have not voted for an Englishman for the esteemed Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen 20 years ago.
When Kane originally floated the idea of exiting Spurs, during an Instagram chat with Jamie Redknapp in March 2020, The Times savaged him for daring to focus on his future when the whole country was fighting for its future, during the first ravages of a pandemic.

Kane’s wish for trophies is understandable, but he should be showing the club that nurtured him greater respect

The Times highlighted yesterday that all of England’s starting Euro 2020 finalists reported for duty in time for the Premier League. Kane didn’t. He’s heavily scrutinised and his behaviour rightly slated. Wait for the press to get stuck into Gareth Southgate and Kane before next month’s World Cup qualifiers. Kane is England captain, an inspiration for a fine generation of young players and a role model for millions, and has to remember to start behaving like a leader.
If Kane is to leave for Manchester City, and his wish for trophies is understandable, then he should make sure he leaves through the front door, head held high, not skulking sheepishly down the fire exit at the back. Leave with dignity and reputation intact.



Hitherto lauded as the ultimate pro, and a decent guy with principles, Kane cannot seriously be enjoying acting so selfishly, disrupting, distracting, developing a saga to force a move, as if Spurs’ streetwise chairman Daniel Levy would ever fall for that. Kane must squirm at hearing those who once cheered his name now jeer it, and having his fabulous body of club work over the past decade denigrated, those 222 goals in 336 appearances devalued. “Are you watching, Harry Kane?” Are you watching your legacy diminished?
Kane cannot appreciate reading the debate about how Spurs could even possibly be better off without him in the quick-moving new world of Nuno Espírito Santo. Even if he now backtracks, and commits to honouring at least the next year of his contract, Kane’s conduct will never be forgotten. Who ate all the humble pie? That difficult-to-digest dish for Kane will still not be enough to win back many Spurs fans angered by his stance.

The articulate Richards was forthright in his views on the Kane situation

His desire to upgrade to City cannot be held against an ambitious footballer. He’d be working with Pep Guardiola. He’d learn even more about the game. Also, it’s now or never. The “stay one more year” narrative is still strange. Erling Haaland, 22 next July, comes properly on the market next summer (with a £65 million release clause) and the prolific Borussia Dortmund striker will be an even more attractive proposition than a 29-year-old Kane. Kylian Mbappé, 23 in December, will be a free agent (unless PSG have convinced him to stay). Kane has to move now.
Fair enough. But treat Spurs with more respect. They are the club that nurtured him, that worked on his puppy fat, that provided a platform for his ferocious will to win. Kane has done great things for Spurs, but so have they for him. So has Son Heung-min. So did Mauricio Pochettino. So has Levy with past contracts. So have the fans with their unconditional backing for “one of our own” until now. As the siren screams, Kane needs to rethink his strategy.

 

[sideways]

Of course they want him, but they like us want best value.
For example I really want a kebab right now, fucked if im paying 50 quid to only kebab shop that's currentlt I'll wait til tommorrow

We'll see ?

If you'd spent the whole night telling all your mates you were buying the kebab, were clearly starving, had just spent £40 on a beer you didn't need and still had a roll of £50s in your pocket from a big win at the casino - would you still wait?

 

[rez9000]

I am in the minority here so I am not going to argue with everyone on this board.

You are talking about the morality of things that I, nor any other City or Chelsea fan can control. You are talking about billions of pounds that was opened when the premier league was founded in 1990's.

It's like if I said, I can't talk to you about what brand of phone is better without mentioning the conditions the chinese workers are in at apple or samsung? What use is that to the conversation? That is money and policies involved in things we will never change or be able to change.

I know that you've not posted since this, and it was 60-odd pages ago and likely other far cleverer posters than me have already commented, but on the off-chance you're still reading and they haven't, but I feel too strongly to avoid chiming in:

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Discussing the relative merits of the different brands of a consumer good, like a phone, is not the same thing, because those entities are competing in a comparable manner. If one compares Samsung and Apple and mentions the use of Chinese sweatshop labour, they're both doing it - so that's a common factor that isn't germane to the conversation as there is no variability.

The difference is that your club's owners are the ruling family of a regime that destroys lives, that dehumanises human beings and every single microsecond of entertainment, success, moments observed bringing supposed glory to the name of your club is steeped in the blood of innocents. And the primary objective of your club's owners is to try and wipe the blood from their hands by having individuals such as yourself think kindly of them for the joy they have provided you. No other PL chairman has that particular characteristic.

Let me ask you this: if you witnessed someone mug another in the street and then walk into a shop and buy you a Mars bar with the money they'd just robbed, how comfortable would you be taking the chocolate? Would you be quite so eager to discuss the relative merits of Mars over Twix?

That's not to say that the other club chairmen are all squeaky-clean characters, but none of the others (not even Abramovich) has built their wealth off the back of a zealously pursued murderous, racist, sexist and homophobic philosophy and then using that money to try and cover their reprehensible behaviour. Certainly Abramovich is guilty of robbing the wealth of people during a febrile period of post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and he should be condemned for that (and I do condemn him for it), but he still didn't devolve so far as to engage in what the Al-Nahyans do, which they do willingly, happily and with the utmost zeal.

So, yes, any discussion that involves City, in any capacity, must include the owner's record of extrajudicial murder, the disappearances of people whose only sin is their political dissent, the repression of anyone who dares to be attracted to a member of the same sex, or has the temerity to be born with female genitalia, or is so cheeky as to have been born in a different country.

You may wish to divorce yourself from it. You may wish to cover your eyes and ignore precisely what your club has become - a vehicle designed to provide cover for the worst humanity has to offer. We've actually seen members of a Man City forum trying to claim that condemning City is racist; the cognitive dissonance in evidence there when City's owners are themselves among the most actively and viciously racist people in the world and actually put their bankrupt ideas into practice, is breathtaking. That's precisely what your owners love to see - normal human beings, who would ordinarily be sickened by the horrors the Al-Nahyans perpetuate, rushing to their defence, because their criminality happens to have helped the club lift some trophies.

Maybe it's understandable: sometimes some things are too big for us to care about. Fine. But if you don't want to involve yourself in that aspect, you can't deny that the fundamental issue exists nor that everything Man City does as a club is designed for a specific objective; therefore any discussion of the club's activities must include that objective, as any club's overall objective is implicitly part of a conversation about their activities. Trying to divorce the horror of what the Al-Nahyans are just because its uncomfortable is simply denying the truth.

The Al-Nahyans don't want to buy Kane only because he would increase the club's success. They want him because it will help perpetuate their objective of deflecting attention from the inhumanity they perpetrate far away in their gilded desert gulag.

Apologies to all for restirring an old post, but I really feel very strongly about this aspect of Man City's current existence.